Gifted Weekly

Is it that time of year for you, too? Assessments for gifted identification frequently occur in the spring, and questions continue circulating among gifted program teachers and administrators regarding the most accurate, fair, and cost-effective system. While universal screening is advocated as a means to enhance the gifted identification process (and rightly so!), practical guidance on its implementation remains limited.

Gifted Child Quarterly features several articles in the April 2024 issue by researchers who have looked deeper into gifted identification decisions. In a feature article, Scott Peters joins other well-known experts to consider implications beyond universal screening. They look at situations where, for example, limited time, finances, and staffing come into play. Later in the article, they apply their concepts to a school site, examining the current testing structure and how it could be improved.

The three essential criteria for selecting a universal screener are nomination validity, reliability, and logistical feasibility.

Nomination validity refers to the alignment between the universal test and the ensuing program, meaning that if the test “nominates” a student, the student is qualified to succeed in that program. For instance, a universal screener that tests for creativity would nominate students well for an arts-based gifted program.

Reliability is “a mixture of two components: true score and measurement error” (Peters et al., 2024). In other words, we seek the signal amidst any accompanying noise. This noise could be a difference in teachers’ scoring, in testing forms, or in the testing environment—anything that leads to inaccuracies in how the score relates to the ability to perform.

Finally, logistical feasibility indicates “how fast, cheap, and easy” (Peters et al., 2024) the screener is. Any two-phase system that goes beyond a universal screening (noted as Phase 1 in this paper) to utilize another test to narrow the qualified participants further (Phase 2) seeks to save resources – otherwise, it would all be used in Phase 1! Therefore, the ability of a district to employ a screening quickly, inexpensively, and with relative ease of administration allows for greater adoption.

Several key points emerge to inform school districts taking the next steps in the implementation of universal screening:

1. Universal screening, encompassing all students within a grade level, yields high sensitivity to reach students in all subgroups but entails significant costs.
2.  Research suggests that a two-phase screening process can reduce costs.
3.  Leveraging existing assessments already administered for other purposes offers a cost-effective screening solution.
4.  Use high-quality academic achievement tests as phase 1 universal screeners, and students meeting set criteria can move to phase 2 for final identification.
5.  Emphasizing the alignment of identification outcomes with school programs underscores the overarching objective of the identification process.

A universal screener must be valid, reliable, and efficient for schools aiming to identify gifted students while making the most of their resources. Program alignment is essential: Every identification method must be tailored to meet particular service requirements and align with the district gifted program’s objectives.

RESOURCES

Papers to read further on specific tests:

• Lewandowski, L. J., & Sussman, K. R. (1988). Test review: Screening assessment for gifted elementary students (SAGES). The Reading Teacher, 41(7), 712–716. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199900

• Maker, C. J. (2020). Culturally responsive assessments of spatial analytical skills and abilities: Development, field testing, and implementation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 234-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20910697

• Silverman, L. K., & Gilman, B. J. (2020). Best practices in gifted identification and assessment: Lessons from the WISC‐V. Psychology in the Schools, 57(10), 1569-1581. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22361

• Valler, E. C., Burko, J. A., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Branagan, A. M. (2017). The test authors speak: Reporting on an author survey of the leading tests used in gifted assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 695-708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916659209

SOURCES

Peters, S. J., Makel, M. C., Lee, L. E., Stambaugh, T., McBee, M. T., McCoach, D. B., & Johnson, K. R. (2024). What Makes for an Effective Gifted and Talented Screener? Gifted Child Today, 47(2), 98-107. https://doi-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/10.1177/10762175231222301